Pseudo-Democracy

Democracy is often understood simply as a procedure, such as quinquennial elections, elite rotations, freedom of speech, and the existence of representative institutions. However, Indonesia’s political history teaches that democracy cannot suffice merely as an institutional ritual. Democracy must also live as an ethic of power, a space for criticism, and respect for opposition. When these elements are merely showcased on the surface while their substance is castrated, what emerges is pseudo-democracy. The latest polemic involving Saiful Mujani provides important context for reading this phenomenon. In a discussion forum at the Utan Kayu Community, Saiful delivered sharp criticism of President Prabowo’s administration. He stated that if advice is no longer heeded, then in democratic logic, citizens have the right to push for peaceful leadership change through public political pressure. That statement was then twisted into an incitement to treason. However, Saiful himself clarified that what he meant was constitutional political participation. It is at this point that Indonesian democracy is being tested, because criticism of the president is not a political sin. In modern democratic theory, opposition is not a threat to the state but a condition for the state to remain healthy. If criticism of the government is immediately suspected as subversive, what is being upheld is not democracy but an anti-corrective psychology of power. This response can be read as an effort to lower political tensions, but it shows a classic tendency of power that citizens’ criticism is seen as peripheral disturbance. Public criticism is reduced to noise unworthy of argumentative response. Yet, the substance of Indonesian democracy does not stop at electoral victory alone. Democracy in the Indonesian context is based on the fourth principle of Pancasila, namely popular sovereignty led by the wisdom of deliberation or representation. This means that the legitimacy of power is not only obtained through majority votes but is also continuously tested through deliberation, accountability, and openness.